Sure it does if density is such that an oak sprout cannot survive! When selective over browsing of preferred plants occurs under high stocking rate, you will promote secondary species of lower intrinsic forage value by default.....animal density will readjust and their diets become adapted to what is available over time regardless of preference or landscape....rangeland, woodland or a mix....animal production and carrying capacity will reflect forage quality and quantity available. What we have failed to realize (or should I say convey in these debates) is that less not more animal density is needed for re-establishment of true preferred high quality forage under free range management of a once low quality native landscape. The free range animal is always going to eat the best and leave the rest....and that will always affect the landscape forage quality unless animal density is brought way down below carrying capacity and kept there for as long as needed! TSI and doe herd reduction go hand in hand......and they have to for herd improvement and native forage improvement sake when both are goals! With cattle this is pretty simple as we control time, space and use of the land by the herd with fence and have reasonable ability to lessen density mechanically of woody species they don't eat or trample into suppression. With deer it's much different because selective browsing is a given and almost always under low density.....you have to manage deer hooves according to the landscape...and be thankful if deer use 30-100 plants daily! One problem with food plots and native land with low diversity and complexity is that you artificially increase animal density around plots and overpressure remaining native plants...true high quality preferred doesn't stand a chance to establish.....the herd will either starve or leave if plotting is discontinued....call it 'pocketized' management if you want....but the underlying problem is lack of plant species diversity and complexity due to lack of understanding of animal needs! Deer and goats.....the hardest of any animals to feed well and manage landscapes for!
TSI?
- Thread starter Rickey
- Start date
Sure it does if density is such that an oak sprout cannot survive! When selective over browsing of preferred plants occurs under high stocking rate, you will promote secondary species of lower intrinsic forage value by default.....animal density will readjust and their diets become adapted to what is available over time regardless of preference or landscape....rangeland, woodland or a mix....animal production and carrying capacity will reflect forage quality and quantity available. What we have failed to realize (or should I say convey in these debates) is that less not more animal density is needed for re-establishment of true preferred high quality forage under free range management of a once low quality native landscape. The free range animal is always going to eat the best and leave the rest....and that will always affect the landscape forage quality unless animal density is brought way down below carrying capacity and kept there for as long as needed! TSI and doe herd reduction go hand in hand......and they have to for herd improvement and native forage improvement sake when both are goals! With cattle this is pretty simple as we control time, space and use of the land by the herd with fence and have reasonable ability to lessen density mechanically of woody species they don't eat or trample into suppression. With deer it's much different because selective browsing is a given and almost always under low density.....you have to manage deer hooves according to the landscape...and be thankful if deer use 30-100 plants daily! One problem with food plots and native land with low diversity and complexity is that you artificially increase animal density around plots and overpressure remaining native plants...true high quality preferred doesn't stand a chance to establish.....the herd will either starve or leave if plotting is discontinued....call it 'pocketized' management if you want....but the underlying problem is lack of plant species diversity and complexity due to lack of understanding of animal needs! Deer and goats.....the hardest of any animals to feed well and manage landscapes for!
In our instance the woods were clearcut many decades ago other than a few postoak, Hickory, White oak, Red Oak, and Shortleaf Pine. from looking at the different stages of growth it appears that 2 areas were spared the saw. 1 of these areas is an area you might suspect as it is the creek bottom through our place and the othere area is everything west of a center interior road through our place. These 2 areas are mostly all mature white oaks, red oaks, big hickory, big post oak, and big shortleaf pine. very little understory and all trees seem to be very mature. The cut areas are thick with spindly post oak and spindly hickory and are probably over 50 years old but spindly...My relatives owned the place in 1972 and I first went out there around 1980 and it was spindly and thick all through those woods.
I guess what I am getting at is I know what nature if left to her own devices would have made our place look from the areas that were not logged. The logged areas are totally different and by far the dominate tree is Hickory whereas the dominate tree everywhere that wasn't logged is White oak...don't know about you but I prefer the nature dominate trees to the man made section.
Hickory is our sweetgum and locust...
I guess what I am getting at is I know what nature if left to her own devices would have made our place look from the areas that were not logged. The logged areas are totally different and by far the dominate tree is Hickory whereas the dominate tree everywhere that wasn't logged is White oak...don't know about you but I prefer the nature dominate trees to the man made section.
Hickory is our sweetgum and locust...
I have seen this in action on our "Home 10" and have said in the past on the QDMA forum that I don't know how any trees survived from seedlings to maturity with deer around...I believe our forest developed when the deer numbers were so low a set of deer tracks made the paper!
dogghr
Well-Known Member
Agree with all the above to some extent. And that is why I say not to be selective, cut the crap our of it when doing typical small TSI areas of 2 ac or so, and let the replanting occur. If enough browse and the animal population is in check, then natures successional process will take place. But to selective cut is no different than high grade timbering of the money making trees in my opinion. You get left with a forced, by man, monoculture ( not really but you know what I mean) forest. A healthy landscape requires a variety that in turn supports a variety of animals. This is true whether we speak of the Great Plains grasses or the Eastern forests, or the Southern savanahhs. Can't blame reaction of nature, when it is our choices of animal or plant management that may have caused the problem to start. Watching disease and/or insects destroy thousands of acres of prime hardwood/ acorn producing forests, has made me think variety is a requirement to survive threats.
I know this is mostly a deer management forum, but with a little thot process involved, then I think the end result will give more selection of plants and animals, not just the deer. Don't get me wrong, no problem by me to wear out the chainsaw, as I do myself, but selective? By what or whose standards? Cut if you will, just observe and think and not react with a knee jerk.
Sorry to derail this thread slightly but think always your actions and their results a decades from now. Not saying right or wrong, your choice.
I know this is mostly a deer management forum, but with a little thot process involved, then I think the end result will give more selection of plants and animals, not just the deer. Don't get me wrong, no problem by me to wear out the chainsaw, as I do myself, but selective? By what or whose standards? Cut if you will, just observe and think and not react with a knee jerk.
Sorry to derail this thread slightly but think always your actions and their results a decades from now. Not saying right or wrong, your choice.
When I say cut my sweet gum and hickory I mean cut every tree down. There is one nice white oak unless there just so happens to be another I have not noticed that may be small and yet to produce. In that little bottom there is nothing but sweet gum, hickory, and a few Holly trees. I don't mind cutting the Holly either. I just know the birds love the Holly. As far as other vegetation, I have some sumac, ivy, very little green briar, and very little muscadine that never gets large enough to produce. Other than birds I have coons frequent the area daily, squirrels galore, deer only 2-3 times a week, and an occasional coyote. What would your recommendation be to increase daytime use of the property by deer? That is my main goal though I do not want to harm my habitat either. I want to encourage it to be nature's happy place so to speak. Not something in which it is now. Now maybe it is much better than I think. If so then I am just wrong because I don't see how it could be. I am just a slightly educated business major who decided to spend a couple days in the military and now work construction as a welding inspector. With that said biology, botany, and ecology are a weakness. I accept that. With that admission I come to those who are far more knowledgeable than I. I have thick skin. If you think I am doing something wrong by what I write in my plans, tell me. I can take it. Constructive criticism will only make me more knowledgeable and a better land steward by making an more educated decision. The bottom line is I want to enjoy my little piece while I can but there are many generations to follow who I want to reap the benefits of what I do now until I can no longer work and enjoy. While enjoying it, if I can stick a mature buck or solitaire doe, that is icing on the cake. If I just wanted to kill a deer I would have never bought this little piece. I can kill all I want on a brown down deer lease. They are not only a dime a dozen in SC, it seems they are the norm.
